Bruce Montague
Bill C-68 Court Challenge
CCF Takes Montague Case | News | Sign-Up for email-updates | donate Donate
This Case Epilogue written February 1, 2017 is intended to provide context to this web site as it documents a Canadian constitutional challenge spanning from 2004 to 2016. Bruce Montague determined to expose the constitutional violations in the Canadian Firearms Act. After being charged, mounting a constitutional challenge and appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada, Montague's case was dismissed without reasons. With Bruce in jail, the Montagues then faced an another twist of injustice -- the confiscation of their home and property by the Ontario government. The Montagues fought the civil forfeiture of their home for years until, in the summer of 2016, the Canadian Constitution Foundation was instrumental in negotiating with the Ontario Civil Forfeiture department to drop the lien against the Montague home. The Canadian Constitution Foundation deserves our support as they continue to fight other cases of injustice around the country. YOU COULD BE NEXT! Canada is undergoing a quiet revolution and your fundamental rights and freedoms are at stake!
What's Wrong with Civil Forfeiture» | Write to Stop Civil Forfeiture»

News Archive


Site Map

Oct23: Constitutional challenge of Firearms Act returns to court

News Archive Index
Source: Kenora Daily Miner and News

By Garett Williams
Daily Miner and News
Tuesday October 23, 2007

Loaded with a new lawyer, Bruce Montague’s fight against the federal Firearms Act resumed in Kenora Superior Court on Monday after a delay of more than five months.

In May, Montague announced Victoria lawyer Doug Christie --best known for defending the freedom of speech rights of those accused of Nazi war crimes and racist or anti-semitic activity - would take over his constitutional challenge, after firing Toronto lawyer Calvin Martin in March.

Montague, from Eton Rugby, near Dryden, is charged with 53 counts of weapons-related offences, including the unauthorized possession and careless storage of non-restricted firearms, explosives and restricted firearms. His wife, Donna Montague, is facing three charges -- the unauthorized possession of a firearm and two counts of careless storage of a firearm.

Justice John Wright will hear their Charter application, which is seeking to strike out sections of the Criminal Code of Canada related to the Firearms Act, to have their criminal charges dismissed and to have the Firearms Act declared unconstitutional. Christie argued firearm possession is an inherent right, stemming from the British North America Act in 1867, guaranteed by Section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- a guarantee certain rights and freedoms don’t deny the existence of any other rights or freedoms.

He referred to William Blackstone’s 1765 book, “commentaries on the law of England.” In it, Blackstone maintains that under English common law, all Canadians have the right to protect their personal security, personal liberty and private property.

“These are things not to be given up without a fight,” christie said. Christy argued the regulation tangles gun owners and would-be gun owners in a bureaucratic nightmare of paperwork and fees. Prohibition through regulation, he called it.

Christie responded to statements the crown is expected to make Tuesday that the registration is in place for public safety.

On the issue that the registration reduces opportunity for criminals to obtain guns, he said there is no way to predict who will act violent in the future, “all humans are capable of negative behavior.”

He slammed the registry for making criminals out of the innocent, using Montague as an example, who he said has not been implicated in any violent crimes or improper use of firearms.

“They like to create inherent criminality because it creates fear,” he said, adding that’s the beginning of a police state.

Christie will finish his response before Crown attorney Peter Keen begins his statement on Tuesday


back to top | search | home | site map
DISCLAIMER: is maintained by friends and supporters of Bruce Montague.
It is NOT an official mouth-piece for Bruce Montague's legal defense.